Seasoned lawyers to argue before commission on rigging

ISLAMABAD: The Judicial Commission, assigned inquiry into deliberate systematic manipulation in the 2013 general elections, will witness many sparring matches between legal titans different political parties have engaged to press their respective side of the story.
Names of seasoned lawyers including Khalid Anwar, Makhdoom Ali Khan, Aitzaz Ahsan, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and Latif Afridi have been mentioned to represent various parties. Attorney General Salman Aslam Butt will be available to assist the commission if required.
Considering their track record, some of these advocates are known for adhering to only constitutional and legal arguments in their submissions before the superior courts while others have also been found obsessed with politicising judicial proceedings rather than exclusively focusing on the Constitution and law.
Every name that has been bandied about has to its credit of successfully fighting a number of cases in superior courts, which had political implications. The findings of the present Judicial Commission will also have dire political consequences for every party defending or disputing the previous polls.
Of them, way back in 1993 Khalid Anwar had represented Nawaz Sharif before the Supreme Court when the latter’s government was dismissed and the National Assembly dissolved by the then president Ghulam Ishaq Khan and won leading to restoration of both.
Senior and junior lawyers are often accused of dragging judicial proceedings at different levels when they think it benefits their clients. It has been a major cause of delayed dispensation of justice. But this practice is unlikely to be allowed by the three-member Judicial Commission headed by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk, as it is required under the specific presidential ordinance to conclude its findings in 45 days. However, it may go beyond this timeline. It will hold hearings only after mid-day when the routine judicial work will end.
No political party can justifiably claim that the commission did not give sufficient time to collect proof of ‘rigging’ because every entity has been claiming over the past two years that it has abundant evidence of poll manipulation, which it is ready to present before the appropriate forum. Hence, no foot dragging will be plausible.
There is no second opinion about the legal acumen of a majority of these lawyers. Every political party has tried to hire the best. They have preferred only those lawyers, who fully buy their point of view on the previous elections.
However, what was needed more than the legal knowledge and expertise of the lawyers was unimpeachable evidence and proofs to establish that the polls, regarded by local and international monitors and supervisors as the most fair and transparent compared to all the previous elections, were manipulated to the extent that their results did not truly reflect the mandate given by the voters. The legal attorneys will base their arguments only on the controversial material provided by their sponsors.
Political forces, which have decided to become party to the proceedings of the commission, have filed their brief statements along with the proofs while others are in the process of giving final touches to their assertions. In its first meeting, the commission, which meets on April 16, had asked the political parties that contested the 2013 elections to submit their statements by Wednesday.
Under the ordinance, the commission has the authority to punish any person who abuses, scandalizes or ridicules it. Section 3 says it will have the same powers as the Supreme Court to punish any person, who abuses, interferes with or obstructs its process in any way or disobeys its order or direction; scandalizes it or any of its member or otherwise does anything which tends to bring it or any of its member in relation to his office into hatred, ridicule or contempt.
Any person, who does anything which tends to prejudice the inquiry or determination of any matter pending before the commission or does any other act, deed or thing, which, under any other law, constitutes contempt of court, will qualify for punishment. However, fair comment made in good faith and in public interest on the final report after the completion of the inquiry will not constitute contempt of the commission.
The commission has a specific scope of inquiry. It will inquire into and determine whether or not the elections were organised and conducted impartially, honestly, fairly, justly and in accordance with law; whether or not the polls were manipulated or influenced pursuant to a systematic effort by design by anyone; and whether or not their results on an overall basis are a true and fair reflection of the mandate given by the electorate.